--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
<mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> Please understand that my calling your points "semantic" was
not meant to
> disparage them in the least (as some commonly use that
word). Semantics and
> etymologies are wonderful intellectual pursuits from which
much can be learned.
>
> You are right to point out: (1) the functional difference between
latitude and
> longitude; and (2) the natural basis of the Equator as opposed
to the artificial
> designation of Greenwich. However, the two poles and the
axis through them are
> concepts just as natural as the Equator. Suppose, if you will
for the sake of
> discussion (not argument),
true
& yes i will
for this is already a multiple improvement
we direct our aggression toward the truth itself
wherever it may lead us
rather than push or bang against anything
> that the North Pole had been arbitrarily designated
> as latitude zero degrees, the Equator as 90 degrees (to the
axis), and the South
> Pole as 180 degrees.
ok
& i would insert
since we are talking about equability itself here
& also because
in the eyes of nature
north isnt really up any more than south is down
etc etc
lets simultaneously suppose a reciprocal trigonometric scale
in which the australocentric & borealocentric neolatitude values
of any place always add up to 180 degrees
> Under such a scheme, the Equator would be a parallel of
> latitude (the 90th), just like all the other east-west rings circling
the earth.
> It has a special significance, of course, but so too do the two
tropics.
indeed so too do all 4 solstitial circles
so
that makes 7 axially perpendicular planes in all
counting those of the poles & equator
that are specially significant because objectively determinate
but in the eyes of nature
& in all truth & equability
the extra special significance of the equator remains
> To
> really turn the system on its ear, what if the fathers of
coordinates had been
> even more attuned to astronomy than they were? We could
have ended up with
> latitude measured from the Ecliptic!
hahahahaha
yes that would turn everything on both ears
ever so gently
every year
& we would really need our reciprocal trig scales then
hahahahaha
> So, yes, the Equator is "fixed by nature;" but the choice of it
(from among
> several equally natural possibilities) as the place from which to
measure
> latitude was as arbitrary as the choice of Greenwich as the
place from which to
> measure longitude (though Greenwich is, admittedly, as
artificial as it is
> arbitrary).
well the 7 special planes are equally natural
but one is more special than the others
& thus the choice of the equator is neither arbitrary nor artificial
indeed it seems the only thing on the globe that is
neither arbitrary nor artificial
for we can turn a representational globe & all 7 of its objective
planes upside down
without in any way violating truth
as those of the australocentric persuasion well know
provided only that the equator stays where it is
a unique objective constant everything else relates to
& it seems that is precisely why all the parallels of latitude are
parallel to the equator rather than to the poles or anything else
& why the equator is unparalleled on earth in having no latitude
> Now, since we do arbitrarily measure latitude from the natural
Equator, I have
> already conceded that it might not be a "parallel"--even though,
as you have
> conceded, it is parallel to all of the parallels.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 11:27 PM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit border
>
>
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > Okay, I can see all your semantic points, but...
> >
> > well good
> > as semantic does after all mean
> > pertaining to the actual meaning of things
> >
> > & semantics are often dismissed as if they ran counter to
good
> > sense or good taste or were somehow gratuitously picky or
> > sophistical or ultimately meaningless pointless worthless
vain
> > void etc
> >
> > but to be dismissive of meaning is just anti intellectualism
> > & disregard for truth really
> >
> > so yes indeed lets start with the actual & exact meaning of
things
> > & hang onto these for dear life at all times
> >
> > > Since you say that the Equator "has no latitude," does the
> > Greenwich Line have
> > > no longitude?
> >
> > well that wouldnt seem to follow either logically or
semantically
> > from the equator having no latitude
> > would it
> >
> > indeed quite the contrary
> > it seems to me
> > since all lines of longitude are of equal objective stature
> > even if not of precisely uniform length
> > with zero longitude having been determined utterly arbitrarily
> > rather than absolutely & as a fact of natural geography
> > in the very distinctive way the equator is fixed by nature
> >
> > so the tudes of lat & long are oranges & apples par
excellence
> >
> > by your reasoning of tude equals tude
> > you might as well expect exactitude & negritude & quietude to
> > behave exactly like latitude too
> >
> > crabapples pomegranates potatoes
> >
> > but you are careful to distinguish lat from long otherwise
> > because you know full well they behave quite differently
> > & that they will trip you up if you dont respect that
> >
> > so why disregard or deny what you know to be their very real
> > distinction just in the moment of greatest truth
> >
> > the truth is they are not the same thing at all
> > & neednt be expected or forced to act as if they were
> >
> > > What about that point in the Atlantic Ocean "under the hump
of
> > > Africa" where these two lines cross? Does it have no
> > coordinates?
> >
> > but wait
> > you are into pineapples now too
> >
> > of course it has coordinates
> >
> > we werent talking about coordinates
> >
> > coordinates are something else
> >
> > it has zero longitude for one coord
> > which is a distinct meridian of longitude
> > & zero or no latitude for the other coord
> > which is not & cant be a parallel of latitude
> > because it is the equator
> >
> > >
> > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > >
> > >
> > > if you were on the Equator, are you telling me that
> >
> > yes
> >
> > & thats all she wrote
> >
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "m06079" <barbaria_longa@h...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 9:01 PM
> > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit border
> > >
> > >
> > > > aw lets compound the technicality anyway
> > > > just to make sure we really are correct
> > > >
> > > > for are you absolutely sure the equator is a parallel of
latitude
> > > >
> > > > my dictionary says a parallel
> > > > in geography
> > > > is
> > > > any of the imaginary lines representing degrees of
latitude
> > > > encircling the earth parallel to the plane of the equator
> > > >
> > > > & i dont think it is possible for the equator
> > > > which is a line in the plane of the equator
> > > > to also be parallel to the plane of the equator
> > > > because parallel in this basic & original geometric sense
> > refers
> > > > to 2 things that are beside one another & thus never meet
> > > >
> > > > also as previously mentioned
> > > > the equator is said to lie at zero degrees of latitude
because
> > it
> > > > has no latitude
> > > >
> > > > does that make it a parallel of latitude
> > > >
> > > > i dont think so
> > > >
> > > > or is it simply parallel to the parallels of latitude that are
> > parallel
> > > > to it
> > > >
> > > > my dictionary says latitude
> > > > in geography
> > > > is
> > > > the angular distance north or south of the equator
> > > > measured in degrees along a meridian
> > > > as on a map or globe
> > > >
> > > > so from this i also gather the equator has no latitude & is
not
> > a
> > > > parallel of latitude because it lies no distance & no
degrees
> > > > either north or south of the equator
> > > >
> > > > the advantage of this view
> > > > if it is indeed correct
> > > > for your technical formulation
> > > > is that it can thus be tightened up as follows
> > > >
> > > > any parallel of latitude
> > > > or any other line of constant bearing that is not a meridian
of
> > > > longitude or the equator
> > > > is not straight
> > > >
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> > McManus"
> > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > You are correct. The Equator is the only parallel of
latitude
> > that
> > > > is also a
> > > > > great circle. I thought of that after writing my message,
but
> > > > didn't want to
> > > > > compound the technicality.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 1:53 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section chit
> > border
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, but I think the Equator would be the exception to
> > > > > > this rule. Of course this is assuming the earth is a
> > > > > > perfect sphere. But we know that it is just an
> > > > > > approximation, and its irregular shape varies.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...>
wrote:
> > > > > > > Well, this is a technicality, but...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any parallel of latitude, or any other line of
> > > > > > > constant bearing that is not a
> > > > > > > meridian of longitude, is not straight. Only an arc
> > > > > > > of a great circle is a
> > > > > > > "straight" line. Even then, it is straight only in
> > > > > > > the horizontal dimension,
> > > > > > > since it curves with the surface of the earth and
> > > > > > > probably goes up hill and down
> > > > > > > as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > From: "Michael Kaufman" <mikekaufman79@y...>
> > > > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 4:14 PM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: Strange section
> > > > > > > chit border
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which leads to the question of which manmade
> > > > > > > segments
> > > > > > > > are NOT straight. The only thing that comes to my
> > > > > > > > mind is the DE-PA Arc (or Arcs). Are there any
> > > > > > > world
> > > > > > > > class examples? I can not think of one, but I may
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > forgetting about something.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- m06079 <barbaria_longa@h...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter
> > > > > > > > > Smaardijk"
> > > > > > > > > <smaardijk@y...> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Note also that it is a municipal exclave of
> > > > > > > > > Innerferrera.
> > > > > > > > > > Cf.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
http://www.innerferrera.ch/innerferrera/geschichte.html
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (mentions
> > > > > > > > > > a territory exchange with Italy in 1962/63 as
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > cause).
> > > > > > > > > > Peter S.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com,
"chris
> > > > > > > > > schulz"
> > > > > > > > > <23568@g...>
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Thats right,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > as i know its result of special interests
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > switzerland.
> > > > > > > > > > > the shown situation is from val di lei.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
http://www.home.pages.at/maxifant/Frames/val-di-lei.htm
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (german)
> > > > > > > > > > > when the wall had been build, switzerland
> > > > > > > wanted
> > > > > > > > > to save
> > > > > > > > > this wall
> > > > > > > > > > by itself,
> > > > > > > > > > > because in the case the wall would be hit
> > > > > > > (by a
> > > > > > > > > bomb or
> > > > > > > > > whatever)
> > > > > > > > > > all the water would come to the val di Avers
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > Switzerland.
> > > > > > > > > > > so now switzerland can save the wall with
> > > > > > > own
> > > > > > > > > guns,...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > regards, chris
> > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: Artur Kroc
> > > > > > > > > > > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 10:07 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Strange section
> > > > > > > chit
> > > > > > > > > border
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This section looks strange - like african
> > > > > > > > > borders - like made
> > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > ruler...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > straight looking sections of borders are
> > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > fairly common
> > > > > > > > > everywhere
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > indeed they occur wherever a border runs
> > > > > > > directly
> > > > > > > > > between 2
> > > > > > > > > markers
> > > > > > > > > or in other words
> > > > > > > > > just about everywhere there is a manmade
rather
> > > > > > > than
> > > > > > > > > a natural
> > > > > > > > > delineation
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > & that means the great majority of the
> > > > > > > individual
> > > > > > > > > delineations in
> > > > > > > > > the world
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > it is just that a much larger scale map is
> > > > > > > needed to
> > > > > > > > > see most of
> > > > > > > > > them
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >